16 as end game

[Devilsadvocate]

Why do people seem to think that super conferences of 16 schools is the end game?
16 is an awkward number. It makes for unbalanced schedules and potentially, anticlimactic rematches in conference championship games.

I assume that in the end, BiG and SEC teams will add as many schools as they see adding value to their TV product, but doesn't 20 work well?

Two divisions of 10 playing round robin schedules in football and home-and-homes in hoops? Champs meet in title game.

 

[All4SU]

Frankly, 9 is the perfect number for a conference. Full round-robin in basketball...full 4/4 slate in football. Unfortunately, that genie is never going back in that bottle.

 

[Devilsadvocate]

We're well beyond 9 (unfortunately). My question was whether 16 > 18 or 20. I was hoping someone could explain why 16 seems to be the magic #.

 

[Scooch]

There's nothing special about 16.

I suspect we'll see conferences of 18 or 20 before too long.

 

[CIL]

There's nothing special about 16.

I suspect we'll see conferences of 18 or 20 before too long.

Agreed Scooch. So many "exapansion-heads" seemed focused on 16. There are a lot of solid brands out there that would get left out of a 4x16 scenario. Right now B10 has 14, SEC has 14, B12 has 10, and then there's the PAC 12 has 12. That's 14 spots for schools like: ND, SU, Pitt, UNC, NC ST, UVA, VA Tech, GA Tech, BC, Clemson, Miami, Wake, Duke, BYU, UCONN, Ville, Cinci, etc.

That also does not take any geographic consideration into account as well.

My guess is we end up in a 5 x 14 or 4 x 18 type world.